BY FRANK MONTAGNA
People call the fire department when they smell an unusual odor in their homes or businesses. It can be a chemical odor, an electrical odor, a smoke odor, or just an unpleasant odor. Typically, the source of the odor turns out to be nonhazardous—but not always. Frequently, the source of an odor is obvious to us—but again, not always. An odor investigation call requires that we function like both detectives and firefighters. We must conduct an investigation; determine the source of the odor; eliminate that source if possible; and, most importantly, leave the building safe for the occupants. These may sometimes be simple tasks—but not always.
Frequent odor responses have trained us to quickly recognize certain odors. When our educated noses recognize an odor, we usually can locate the source quickly. The odor of burning food, for instance, is easy for firefighters to recognize. When searching for the source of “food on the stove,” we know to check the kitchen and its various cooking appliances. Failing to find the odor’s source there, we expand our search by looking for a second kitchen or a hotplate or toaster in other rooms. On the other hand, an electrical odor, while often easy to recognize, can be difficult to track down. The odor of an overheating ballast is easy to recognize, but sometimes it is not easy to locate the offending light fixture. This is especially true in a large commercial building with numerous fluorescent lights.
In today’s homes and businesses, there are many possible sources of electrical odors, making it difficult for firefighters to locate the cause of the odor. Another problem in tracking down electrical odors is the fact that sometimes the source is not electrical at all. For instance, duct tape on a flue pipe, when sufficiently heated, can mimic an electrical odor.
The key to successfully investigating and mitigating odor complaints is to be systematic and persistent. You should have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for odor investigations, and you should follow the SOP every time. If you investigate in a haphazard fashion, you increase the likelihood that you will miss clues that can lead you to the source of an odor. When an odor’s source is not obvious, does not seem harmful, or seems to have dissipated, firefighters lose interest in the investigation. They want to get back to the firehouse, or home to bed, or back to their dinner that is getting cold on the table. They are ready to end the investigation. When they think it is an unnecessary and hazardless response, they wonder why the chief doesn’t just tell them to take up.
Another obstacle to a thorough odor investigation is the so-called “routine response syndrome.” Firefighters, responding to incidents that always seem to be nonlife-threatening, begin to take them less seriously. Odor investigations frequently fall into this category. Because past odor responses were unnecessary or at least nonhazardous, they expect all such responses to pose no hazard and to be just another “routine response.” When this happens, firefighters become complacent and want to quickly conclude their investigation. Again, having an SOP and following it every time can help to counter this complacency.
In hindsight, I realize that I experienced this syndrome as a young firefighter. We had a chief who would hold us for a long time at these types of responses that I, in my probationary firefighter’s wisdom, knew were bogus or at least harmless. I knew that in the end we would either not find the source of the reported odor or would find that it was benign. After all, I had responded to any number of these responses in my short career and could pretty well figure out in the first five minutes if it would amount to anything. This chief, I thought, was a real pain and was overly cautious. He would hold the whole first-alarm assignment while the trucks looked for the source of the odor. He did this in the winter, and we froze. He did this in the summer, and we sweltered. We missed meals, we missed TV shows, and we missed sleep. Like I said, he was a real pain.
As time passed, I studied and was promoted to lieutenant, captain, and chief. Each promotion resulted in my acquiring more knowledge and experience. I learned what it meant to be the one responsible for the safety of firefighters and the people we protect. I learned what it was like to return to the firehouse and wonder if a building’s occupants were safe. Would I have to respond back to a building later, only to find a raging fire or a building’s occupants overcome by deadly fumes? As a result of this new insight, I found myself holding the first-alarm assignment on the scene until I either found the source of a suspicious odor or was fairly sure it was benign. My studies, my experience, and my position of responsibility made me aware of many more potential bad results that could occur as the result of an inadequate odor investigation. I had become the chief that I complained about.
Now I understood why he held us so long. He was not a pain; he was thorough. He was not a worry-wart; he was concerned for the occupants. He wanted to be able to put his head down on the pillow and not wake up the next morning to read about a family who had died as the result of his failed odor investigation, which resulted in an electrical fire. I knew the firefighters who worked with me considered me a pain for holding them at these incidents for so long. Well so be it. Just as the chief before me was responsible, I also am responsible, and I fully intend to act responsibly.
A thorough odor investigation may occupy you for some time before you can locate the odor’s source, and sometimes you will simply not be able to locate its source. Just because you do not smell an odor does not mean that the occupant didn’t smell the odor. The odor may have dissipated before you arrived, the building may have been vented by the occupant, or the cause of an odor might be intermittent. A leaky flue pipe only emits an odor when the furnace is in the burn mode. An odor seeping into the building from outdoors could have been blown away by the wind.
After investigating an odor for a time, you can become desensitized to it and, as a result, no longer smell it. Another reason that some might not be able to detect an odor is that they have lost their sense of smell permanently or temporarily. A cold or allergies can hamper our ability to trace an odor. Scientists tell us that humans can differentiate among as many as 10,000 smells but that this ability can deteriorate as we age. In addition, two to four million people in the United States have completely lost their ability to smell for a variety of reasons. Our own smoky gear may mask a reported odor, preventing us from detecting it.
When investigating firefighters can no longer smell the odor, don’t assume it has dissipated. Instead, bring in a fresh nose. Firefighters who have not yet been exposed to the odor may be able to track it, while firefighters previously exposed to it no longer can. Alternatively, have the firefighters go outside and breathe in some fresh air to reset their sense of smell. Using fresh firefighters is the better option. It not only brings in a fresh nose, but it also brings in firefighters who have not already formed an opinion or misconception as to the odor’s source or even its presence or absence. It is like assigning fresh firefighters to perform a secondary search at a fire.
Incident commanders (ICs) make life-and-death decisions every day—not just at fires and obviously hazardous incidents but even at seemingly routine odor investigations. I responded to an odor of smoke investigation in a private house late one afternoon. When we arrived, there was a noticeable electrical odor in the home. The truck officer, after investigating, reported to me that the odor had dissipated and that he could not find the source. As was my habit, if the investigation turned nothing up, I entered the building and took a look for myself. After a few minutes of nosing around, I agreed with him. I informed the occupant that we could not find the source of the odor, the odor was no longer present, and that there was no danger at the present time. I further explained that if the odor reappeared, he should call us again. As I spoke to him, over his shoulder, I saw a haze developing near the ceiling in the kitchen, and the odor was again noticeable. Obviously, we all had missed something.
This time, the source of the odor and of the haze was quickly traced back to the rear of the refrigerator. Pulling the appliance out from the wall revealed flames behind the refrigerator. We had missed something, and had we left after assuring the occupant he was safe, we might have returned to a serious fire. Not only did this put the occupants of the home at risk, but it put me as IC and my department at risk of being scrutinized by the lawyers. A fatal fire resulting from a failed odor investigation would attract lawyers who would try their best to make it look as if I were criminally negligent in my investigation.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
As IC, I am responsible to call the shots. I say when the investigation is over, and I tell units when to take up. I am also responsible for the safety of my firefighters as well as that of the civilians in the building. If I terminate the investigation and leave the scene with my firefighters, the outcome, good or bad, would be on my head.
If I am guilty of “routine response syndrome” and, as usual, nothing bad happens, I dodged another bullet. It would have been just good luck and nothing that I could take credit for. If, however, on the other hand, we returned to a building fire and an occupant was injured or killed, I would certainly face legal ramifications in addition to a profound sense of guilt that I would have to live with, regardless of the outcome of any trial. The lawyers would start circling me and my department, looking to feed. I would likely find myself on the witness stand trying to explain my actions or inactions.
When firefighters arrive at the scene, they announce their arrival to dispatch, and it is recorded. When they take up from the scene, they announce their departure; again, it is recorded. In an investigation, the time between arrival and departure will be scrutinized. Will it be considered adequate time to conduct a thorough odor investigation? Remember, it will not be other firefighters making that judgment. That decision will be made by a jury of 12 citizens who could easily see themselves in the position of calling the fire department to investigate an unknown odor in their homes. If someone has died because we did not find the source of the odor, how do you think the jury will see it? Will they think that adequate time was taken to do a thorough investigation?
Another question that the jury will consider is whether we did all that we could to locate the source of the odor. Did firefighters use all of the tools available to them in their investigation? Was the thermal imaging camera (TIC) used? Had the firefighters been adequately trained in its use? What will the jury see as an adequate time? Can we make the jury understand how a heat source can be shielded from the TIC? Were combustible gas meters and carbon monoxide meters used? Again, had firefighters been adequately trained in their use?
Subject matter experts will be brought in by both the prosecutor and by your defense attorney. Do you think both will agree with you that you spent an adequate amount of time investigating? Which one will the jury believe? When you are being deposed or testifying under oath, how will you answer the question: “If you had spent longer looking for the source, might you have discovered it?” What would be your answer to the question: “Could a carbon monoxide meter have notified you that there was a dangerous buildup of the deadly gas in the building?” How about the question, “Would a combustible gas indicator have alerted you to the potentially dangerous natural gas condition?” You and I both know that sometimes you just can’t find the source of an odor, but can you convince a jury of that?
Look, I am not a lawyer, and what I am writing is not meant as legal advice. If you need legal advice, you had best see a lawyer. That said, having read numerous National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) fatal fire investigation reports, I have noted that fire departments are frequently faulted for not having a policy to cover particular types of incidents. NIOSH also faults ICs for not following polices. Having a policy and following it may well serve to help insulate you from a bad legal judgment.
What has not served fire departments very well is the dubious defense that states, “We always do it that way.” It has not served them well in equal employment opportunity cases, hazing cases, fire fatality cases, or in any other type of situation of which I am aware. Having a stated or, even better, a written policy is not the same thing as saying, “We always do it that way.”
A trial can go on for years and can threaten not only your department’s funds but your freedom and your assets while most certainly destroying your peace of mind. Your photo will appear in the paper with articles accusing you of incompetence and negligence or worse. Reporters will appear at your door to stick cameras and microphones in your face. The experience can make life a living hell for you and for your family. You may be personally sued. Then there is your own nagging doubt. You will wonder if you had done this or that, could you have possibly saved a life, or lives. It will be a hard thing to live with.
If you are the IC, you are the one who will be held accountable for any failures, and you are the one who has to be satisfied with the investigation. I suggest that you, like I did, become that pain-in-the-butt IC by continuing the investigation until YOU are satisfied that you have done all you can do and that it is safe to leave. I further suggest that when the firefighters are ready to give up on finding the source of an odor, the IC take a walk inside and size up the situation personally. At the very least, it brings a fresh nose and a fresh perspective to play in the odor investigation. Being the pain-in-the-butt will not make you popular, but it will help you sleep better. More importantly, it will help keep safe those we serve.
FRANK MONTAGNA, a 42-year veteran of the Fire Department of New York, has been a battalion chief for 25 years. He is assigned to the department’s Training Academy, where he is responsible for curriculum and officer development and simulation training. Montagna developed the department’s natural gas and electrical substation tactical manuals and is one of the creators of Fire Engineering‘s on-line simulations. He has a BS in fire science and teaches a course for John Jay College based on his book Responding To “Routine” Emergencies (Fire Engineering, 1999.) He has published numerous fire-related articles and frequently lectures on these topics.
